Cheap and Costly Grace

[Sobeknofret]

Lots of atheists I know reject the Christian god, and simply follow the moral teachings of Christ, because ultimately they're the right thing to do. My husband is one of these. And Liberal Quakers run a gamut from believing in the literal resurrection of the body of Christ to no belief in any theistic being at all.

[emmiedahl]

Then why do we need such costly Grace?

(it sounds like we have similar views of the OT, btw.)

[Sobeknofret]

Sobeknofret, the top question I have about your post is why we would need a sacrificial Grace in the first place?

Someone on the first page made a good point about God making us *on purpose* so imperfect that someone would need to be tortured so we would not deserve a lifetime of misery.

It *is* a good point. I think it depends on whether or not you believe in a literal fall or see it more metaphorically/allegorically. I can't speak for anyone who believes literally in a Fall and Expulsion out of the Garden of Eden, because I don't. FWIW, I don't believe in a literal Exodus either. If it's allegorical, it's the falling away of man from the ideals that God wanted for us. The sacrifice is perhaps a way to reconcile us with God, and bring us back to the ideals that

underlie the faith. We're not able to achieve those goals on our own, so grace is necessary to bring us to where we should be. But! We have free will-- we have to be able to make our own mistakes and go our own ways, even if it's not what we should be doing, either according to what God or even society wants. We *have* to be able to make those mistakes, and we also need to be able to atone for them accordingly. I'm not sure what that means practically though. I do believe that "costly" grace is doing the things that are morally correct that Christ asked us to do-- caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, taking care of those who need the extra help-- whether that plays out as actually doing those things physically, helping in other ways. It's the difference between posting your bra color on Facebook and actually helping women access healthcare to diagnose and treat breast cancer. The first is easy to do, but substantially achieves nothing. The second is much more demanding of our time, effort, and sometimes money, but pushes us to make changes to our lives to provide that help. It "costs" us something to do it and achieves results.

To share my own beliefs, I believe in some version of the Jewish God on most days, but that He made us pretty wonderfully and that we exist in a state of Grace as long as we are trying. As for the afterlife, who knows? But it will probably be better than here, and in the end we will be happy because God is good. I base this on the multiple comparisons of God to a parent. The Christian God, even the liberal Quaker version, is a really bad person, and saying that he at least is better than totalitarian governments does not do anything to improve my opinion of him.

See, I never felt close to the OT/Jewish God at all. I've always seen him as more remote and punitive than the God portrayed in the NT.

[emmiedahl]

If I believed in the entire OT as literal, I might also. It's a very imperfect history of my people, basically. In my point of view.

I don't see how the NT God is nicer--He kills his own child to prove a point. And does not deliver on any of the Messianic promises. So it's like "Hey, you know that world peace thing? I decided not to do that. But I killed my own child, that should count for something!"

[formergothardite]

The NT God really is not that nice. He tortures and kills his own child, and while his child (who is really him?) is being tortured he turns his back on him and leaves Jesus feeling forsaken. After Jesus dies and comes back and then leaves, things don't get any better for people, they actually seem to get worse and you end up with His followers writing all sorts of rules that have been used to support everything from slavery to women not being independent.

[Sobeknofret]

If I believed in the entire OT as literal, I might also. It's a very imperfect history of my people, basically. In my point of view.

I don't see how the NT God is nicer--He kills his own child to prove a point. And does not deliver on any of the Messianic promises. So it's like "Hey, you know that world peace thing? I decided not to do that. But I killed my own child, that should count for something!"

I don't see the OT as being literal, any more than I see the NT as being totally literal, at least in terms of the Gospels. The Epistles make me want to pull my hair out in frustration, and Revelation is so far out there it reads like a bad acid trip. I see the sacrifice of Christ as being akin to so many other "sacrificial man" stories, like the death of Tammuz, sacrificed to bring about a certain event or end. And I'mma cut off there, because I do looooove my comparative religion ;)

[Sobeknofret]

The NT God really is not that nice. He tortures and kills his own child, and while his child (who is really him?) is being tortured he turns his back on him and leaves Jesus feeling forsaken. After Jesus dies and comes back and then leaves, things don't get any better for people, they actually seem to get worse and you end up with His followers writing all sorts of rules that have been used to support everything from slavery to women not being independent.

I guess I see the narrative as continuing from the OT where there are plenty of literal and metaphorical sacrifices and substitutions of men/boys, and women/girls for that matter- Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah, Abraham and Isaac, and Christ as the pinnacle sacrifice.

And I agree with you completely about the rules being used to oppress women and support some really awful stuff. I totally understand that and I'm right there with you. I'm reading a book now called What Paul Really Said About Women which really drives that misuse of scripture by fundamentalists home. I, unfortunately, read NT Greek really poorly, so I can't confirm his conclusions about what Paul really said, but it's interesting reading.

[formergothardite]

Even if it isn't viewed as literal and just a story, it is still a pretty horrible God story. God creates a situation where the only solution that he will accept is to make his son be tortured and die(well, fake die) and while his son is being tortured, this god forsakes his son and leaves him feeling abandoned. That isn't a nice God.

[Burris]

That sounds really awful, I really don't want that. The whole idea of it sets me on edge.

There are people so terrible I have a very hard time thinking they should get a crack at rehabilitation.

But whereas people can be evil, God is not. The idea this Being would send anyone to eternal torture for a time-limited crime of any magnitude is monstrous.

The furnace discussed in those verses I mentioned earlier – perhaps a metaphorical device for some other kind of cleansing - does not sound very appealing. I would say everyone who passes through there will learn whatever hard lesson is required of them to understand and truly atone for their crimes before moving on.

Besides that, I think almost everyone is capable of evil, though most will never have the misfortune of finding out how deep this capacity goes. To judge ourselves as being better people than those who, say, worked at Abu Ghraib - well. that is a bit premature.

[Burris]

What the crap happened to the free will I'm supposed to have, if nothing I believe in life actually matters? If, after death, I'm going to be forcibly 'reconciled' with something that I actively chose not to believe in, and that I find completely unpalatable?

ETA: the above is a continuation of my reaction to this:

I'm making this note because we've turned the page, and I didn't want it to come off as an isolated rant.

I say what I believe, although I do understand what you mean. For me, the inability to reconcile would create the opposite of free will (such as it has with the Calvinists).

It's also possible, as another poster mentions, that you could opt for annihilationism - or better yet, be given leave to spend whatever other life there is in whatever manner you wish.

Whatever the truth is, I think it’s so great that most people would actually choose reconciliation not out of fear but because they genuinely want it.

This is the problem with every theological argument: They all come down to belief, which cannot be proven.

[B5SnowDog]

There are people so terrible I have a very hard time thinking they should get a crack at rehabilitation.

But whereas people can be evil, God is not. The idea this Being would send anyone to eternal torture for a time-limited crime of any magnitude is monstrous.

Is it any more monstrous than flooding an entire world because It wasn't happy with some of the inhabitants? How about killing innocent children because It hardened their leader's heart against freeing slaves? What about Job?

[Guest Anonymous]

There are people so terrible I have a very hard time thinking they should get a crack at rehabilitation.

But whereas people can be evil, God is not. The idea this Being would send anyone to eternal torture for a time-limited crime of any magnitude is monstrous.

When I said that I did not like the idea of everyone being reconciled to God, I was not talking about 'terrible' people being reconciled to God. I would be happy if people actually tried to rehabilitate those 'terrible' people in this life. I was talking about myself, I do not want to be forcibly reconciled to a God I do not like.

Regarding this:

I say what I believe, although I do understand what you mean. For me, the inability to reconcile would create the opposite of free will (such as it has with the Calvinists).

If you're saying that free will means allowing people the opportunity to reconcile with God, even after death, then I have no problem with that. But you seemed to be talking about everyone being reconciled with God. That means force. I do not believe in Christianity, I do not want to be a part of the Christian religion, I do not like it, and I do not want to be reconciled with the Bible's God. For me, reconciliation would have to mean force.

And this?

be given leave to spend whatever other life there is in whatever manner you wish.

This just sounds pretend.

I do respect your right to say what you believe, but I had a real visceral reaction to what you were saying. I really hope it isn't real. It sounds awful. I only hope that, if the Christian God turns out to be real, I have the strength and the fortitude to reject Him after my death, regardless of the consequences, because I do not agree with Him.

ETA: An extra quote from Burris, for clarity. Also, some word tweaks.

[valsa]

Leaving without warning? Really? I have to give you warning before I leave my computer to do other things? Sorry, my actions aren't accountable to you.

No, you're not accountable to me or anyone here. However, don't act butthurt and surprised when a sudden disappearance after starting what appears to be a shit-stirring thread is interpreted as a flounce or trolling.

[Sobeknofret]

No, you're not accountable to me or anyone here. However, don't act butthurt and surprised when a sudden disappearance after starting what appears to be a shit-stirring thread is interpreted as a flounce or trolling.

A "disappearance" of slightly more than 12 hours? Don't act butthurt and surprised when I call you out on being an asshat for being bitchy over a "disappearance" that was me eating dinner and doing something other than being at your beck and call. I love this board and I don't mind answering for my own actions and explaining my own stuff, but seriously? You personally freak out over even the slightest mention of Christianity-- I've watched it happen time and time again. Your whole contributions to this discussion have been nothing but nasty from your first post. Build a bridge and get over it. I don't care that you're an atheist. I *do* care that all you've done is bitch about me "disappearing" and contributed nothing of value to the discussion or even tried to engage the idea with any kind of intellectual honesty.

Oh, I plan to go out tonight for Thai food with my spouse and kid, and then to a bookstore, where I might look at a romantic novel in a series I've been reading and buy a magazine with some knitting patterns in it, if that's ok with you?

[valsa]

You personally freak out over even the slightest mention of Christianity-- I've watched it happen time and time again.

I live in the U.S. If I freaked out every time there was the slightest mention of Christianity, I'd be in a straightjacket. However, I don't mind pointing out that Christianity is not any more special and true than any other religion, which does bother people who think Christianity should be treated with more respect than, say, the Santa Clause myth (which, incidently, has just as much evidence in its corner)

I *do* care that all you've done is bitch about me "disappearing" and contributed nothing of value to the discussion or even tried to engage the idea with any kind of intellectual honesty.

Again, you come across as someone who expects Christianity to be treated with kid gloves (which you've done this entire thread) My first post in this thread was intellectually honest. The fact you might not like my take on the Bible and God's culpability in intentionally creating human beings who sin doesn't mean it doesn't add value.

Oh, I plan to go out tonight for Thai food with my spouse and kid, and then to a bookstore, where I might look at a romantic novel in a series I've been reading and buy a magazine with some knitting patterns in it, if that's ok with you?

Hmmm... I'd have to know which romantic novel it is before I sign off on this.

[formergothardite]

Why exactly did you react the way you did to Koala's post? Especially since you are now saying you agree with what she was saying, that the God of the OT Bible demanded some hard things of his people, and some of those hard things were really awful.

[Sobeknofret]

I live in the U.S. If I freaked out every time there was the slightest mention of Christianity, I'd be in a straightjacket. However, I don't mind pointing out that Christianity is not any more special and true than any other religion, which does bother people who think Christianity should be treated with more respect than, say, the Santa Clause myth (which, incidently, has just as much evidence in its corner)

Again, you come across as someone who expects Christianity to be treated with kid gloves (which you've done this entire thread) My first post in this thread was intellectually honest. The fact you might not like my take on the Bible and God's culpability in intentionally creating human beings who sin doesn't mean it doesn't add value.

Hmmm... I'd have to know which romantic novel it is before I sign off on this.

I don't expect Christianity to be treated with kid gloves, nor do I want it-- it's partially why I posted this here, for viewpoints as different as I can get. It shouldn't be treated with kid gloves, but neither should any other faith or lack of faith. If my faith can't stand up to challenges, and questioning, it's not really worth it, is it? I'm not a fundy who can't stand any opposing ideas or entertain ideas other than my own. It's likely that I've never *thought* of some challenges people here have brought, and might need time to think and consider to be able to answer honestly, but you will never find me intentionally being *dishonest.* Religious and intellectual dishonesty are, well, just plain wrong. And I did miss your very first post, for which I apologize.

And the novel is the newest Lora Leigh (shamelessly raunchy and goofy). I kind of got tired of her writing in the last book in the series, so I want to look at it in print before I buy it for the nook. :D

[Sobeknofret]

Why exactly did you react the way you did to Koala's post? Especially since you are now saying you agree with what she was saying, that the God of the OT Bible demanded some hard things of his people, and some of those hard things were really awful.

I misunderstood what she was getting at. And I also wonder who demanded those things, men saying God did, or God? I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, and I do think that the concerns and desires of men intrude into it at some points. What I was trying to say in a clumsy way was that if we're going to reject a religion and a religious system of government, because that's indeed what's going on in the OT, because of those things, then what do we do with a secular government that tacitly condones and participates in slavery and racial discrimination and legislates the subjugation of women as well? (And here I was thinking of the US government and slavery/racial laws up to the Civil War and laws which disenfranchised women up to this current period, although Hitler and Stalin fit too) Reject it too? It creates a double standard if we reject one and accept the other. Personally, I see room for improvement and growth in both government and religion.

[Sobeknofret]

Crud, I still didn't say what I was trying to. I think the things that Koala brought up were laws instituted by men, not God. They were used to govern the tribes of Hebrews in the early history of those tribes, for reasons that might have made sense then to that time and place in that context. Hopefully we know enough to reject those laws now, although the fundies we snark on would very much like to revert to those laws as the rule of the land. Similar laws were instituted by the US and other governments, but I don't think unjust laws which are, and should be, rejected and/or improved to encompass the rights of all citizens or members of a faith, is a reason for jettisoning the whole deal. I don't consider the fact that we still have really unjust laws on the books a reason to totally reject the government; it means that we need to identify those places where the law is unjust and improve or reject them. I don't consider the fact that there were some really horrid things asked of the Hebrews a reason to totally reject faith out of hand, but a chance to improve and refine it, which is what I think the NT does-- refines and rejects parts of the OT faith to bring it into line with more modern ideas. A faith, or a government, that can't change stagnates and dies.

[valsa]

And I also wonder who demanded those things, men saying God did, or God? I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, and I do think that the concerns and desires of men intrude into it at some points.

Except that if we go down this road, there's no way to tell which lessons you should take to heart as coming from God and which you should ignore as being manmade. What if what you'd like to believe is the incorrect version? What if God actually does want rape victims to be stoned and basically everything touchy-feely that Jesus talked about was something humans just made up off the top of their head?

It creates a double standard if we reject one and accept the other. Personally, I see room for improvement and growth in both government and religion.

A government can be changed with the input of the people it governs. Religious morals are based on interpretations of what an all-knowing, all-powerful, and yet completely unknowable and never-seen higher being thinks.

If you want an unjust law to be changed, there are avenues you can follow to get those laws changed. How do you change religious edict?

[formergothardite]

Didn't we reject the whole government condoning slavery and segregation thing? And people are starting to reject a government that doesn't give equality to gay people. But all this bad stuff is based on the ideas of men, not the ideas of God. Where in the OT, those were based on the teachings of God, not the teachings of men.

Why do you think those are men's laws and not God's laws? Because they are so horrible? And if those parts are written by men, how do you know the good parts aren't?

And if you are going to change a religion based on what is currently acceptable to society, why bother with a religion?

[Sobeknofret]

Except that if we go down this road, there's no way to tell which lessons you should take to heart as coming from God and which you should ignore as being manmade. What if what you'd like to believe is the incorrect version? What if God actually does want rape victims to be stoned and basically everything touchy-feely that Jesus talked about was something humans just made up off the top of their head?

I think that's where faith comes in. Believers have to take on faith that the NT is the correction and revision of the OT, reacting to a new society and a new set of ideas. The tribes that were once nomadic and separated by distance in the OT were more settled and had a governmental and religious center, although they were part of the Roman Empire. N.B., I tend to separate the Gospels from the epistles and Revelation, as I said earlier. I think the further you get away from the Gospels, the further removed we get from the core of the new covenant.

It creates a double standard if we reject one and accept the other. Personally, I see room for improvement and growth in both government and religion.

A government can be changed with the input of the people it governs. Religious morals are based on interpretations of what an all-knowing, all-powerful, and yet completely unknowable and never-seen higher being thinks.

If you want an unjust law to be changed, there are avenues you can follow to get those laws changed. How do you change religious edict?

[valsa]

I think that's where faith comes in. Believers have to take on faith that the NT is the correction and revision of the OT, reacting to a new society and a new set of ideas. The tribes that were once nomadic and separated by distance in the OT were more settled and had a governmental and religious center, although they were part of the Roman Empire. N.B., I tend to separate the Gospels from the epistles and Revelation, as I said earlier. I think the further you get away from the Gospels, the further removed we get from the core of the new covenant.

So you're just basically cherry-picking the Bible to create a version of God you want to believe in?

But aren't we seeing this to some degree in the Roman Catholic Church. More and more Catholics are getting fed up with the refusal of the Church to address some problematic aspects of the faith, using what we have learned in the past? Many Catholics are frustrated with the seeming inability of the Church to move into the modern age and deal with problems in a realistic way. I've often wondered if the current agitation won't lead to another schism in the Church, like the Reformation. It'll be interesting to see what plays out in the coming years.

The church and God are two different things. Your belief system seems to revolve entirely around humans and doesn't have anything to do with God. You take from the Bible what you want to take (if that's not what God actually meant, oh well, because there's no way to tell for sure) and you take the church's change in morality as some sort of change in God's morality (and if they had it right the first time, oh well, because there's no way to tell for sure)

Never has the idea of "Man created God in his own image" ever been so apt.

ETA: Because of course formergothardite said it far better than I:

And if you are going to change a religion based on what is currently acceptable to society, why bother with a religion?

For that matter, if you are going to change God based on what is currently acceptable to society, why bother with a God?

[formergothardite]

Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to do away with the Laws in the OT, it was later on that Paul(or one of those people) wrote that it was okay to not follow the OT Laws? Or am I getting my Bible wrong?

But if that is true, then it would definately be man who decided to no longer stick to the OT laws and had nothing to do with God.

[Sobeknofret]

Didn't we reject the whole government condoning slavery and segregation thing? And people are starting to reject a government that doesn't give equality to gay people. But all this bad stuff is based on the ideas of men, not the ideas of God. Where in the OT, those were based on the teachings of God, not the teachings of men.

I'm not so sure that they are entirely based on the teachings of men. Although the country was not founded as a Christian nation, a lot of Judeo-Christian ideas filtered in, which is starkly obvious when you look at the arguments against LGBQT equality, which all seem to boil down to "Because our God says it's ICKY!" We're not a religious society, and anyone with an ounce of sense doesn't want one. A secular government should be just that: secular. That way it serves the interests of the people it represents, and not the interests of a segment of society (Christians)

Why do you think those are men's laws and not God's laws? Because they are so horrible? And if those parts are written by men, how do you know the good parts aren't?

Faith and discernment tell me that those are the laws of men, not the will of God. Those things are so starkly in contrast with the New Covenant described in the NT, which I do believe are inspired by Divine will. The epistles are a different ballgame altogether, and I think need to be approached with caution and careful reading. Unfortunately, most of us don't read NT Greek and are limited by our understanding of what is really being said by an intermediate translator which may or may not be accurate.

And if you are going to change a religion based on what is currently acceptable to society, why bother with a religion?

Why indeed? A religion needs to be flexible enough to accommodate changing times and changing variables. No religion can predict the future with total accuracy. There is no way that the Biblical world could even imagine a disease as horrible as HIV, or the world population exploding as it has. Yet, here they both are. The Catholic Church is running into trouble over this one, because they can't accept that the best way to relieve suffering is partially by rescinding the prohibition on birth control, including prohibitions on barrier methods of BC that reduce the spread of the HIV virus. Yet, the Church is so hidebound by it's own refusals to change, they're actually causing more suffering. It's reducing the significance of the Church to many believers. Maybe eventually, we may not bother with a religion. Right now, faith is comforting to many people, and for what comfort and support it can offer to believers, I think it's worth it. Non-believers should be, in my opinion, free to find comfort and support wherever they wish to look.